Flights to the moon cost a lot of money and you don't make a penny out of it

This is obvious that progress alone does not drive decisions. Money does.

As for your flying car, you'll start seeing it when we have drivers who can safely drive on 3 dimensional roads, and for that, you have to be able to do it safely on 2 dimensional roads first, which can be far, far away...

I don't have much sympathy if you answer "yes", since its a normal occurrence, that for some reason people are shocked by yearly. Just like I felt a very bare minimum of sympathy for people after Katrina, or every time the Mississippi floods, or those morons who build houses on sandy cliffs in California, who then bitch about erosion, or all the morons here in AZ that will be washed away the next "100 year flood" when their houses in river beds get destroyed. There are some disasters that you can see coming...

If the answer is "no", of course its a terrible thing, especially if its man caused.

LA is in the DESERT, which is generally where wild fires happen, but never seems to realize this simple fact.

I've been browsing the web practically since there was one, and I rather like that I can type in a substring of the title of a page I visited yesterday but didn't think to bookmark or save the exact URL somewhere. I'm a human, it's not my job to remember URLs. Domain names sure, but URLs are the computer's job.

Everyone that I've heard complain about the awesomebar hates it because they only want URL auto-complete and are confused that it does more than they were expecting or are used to.

When doing an XP install and you get to the point where you give the computer a description, the following text is displayed:

"You can also give your computer a friendly description. Unlike the computer name, the computer description may contain spaces and other special characters. "David's game machine" and "The Chavez Family Computer" are examples of computer descriptions."

Hmmm... David (white sounding name) gets an expensive game machine all to himself, while the entire Chavez (Hispanic sounding name) family have to share one computer. No, nothing implied there.

You claim a user's post to be invalid simply due to his ideology? Rupublican and Democrat are terms that describe political affiliation, not ideological beleif. Some on the far right may not see moderate Republicans as being paticularly conservative, just as some far left liberals may not see Blue-Dog Democrats as being paticularly liberal.
Please, if you're going to debate, do it on the substance of a person's issue rather than attacking him on the basis of his perceived ideology.

Saying 'This person's post is innaccurate because I think he's a far-right liberatarian' belies an certain level of ignorance on your own part, regardless of your ideology.

Can you define "skank", prove that in the context she used it is a statement of fact and prove it objectively false? If not, it's opinion. That's protected speech. Even if it was a false statement of fact, Cohen likely is a public figure (limited purpose if nothing else). She would then have to prove that Port acted with actual malice. And that's almost impossible to do unless you can prove that she at the very least doubted Cohen was a "skank" and said it anyway. Defamation is rightly a very hart tort to win in the US.

And yeah, I have been defamed before with allegations similar to what you imply. I don't feel differently. My response was to point out the truth and show her to be a liar. Even if I wanted to sue this woman who defamed me, IRL, i'd probably be considered a limited purpose public figure and as a result there is very little chance I could win a defamation tort against the woman.

Some people are actually capable of reading and understanding what you (and others) say, then remembering it and acting on it. We understand that everything that we do on line has the potential to be remembered by the system, and therefore recalled at some future date. Therefore we only say things that we're willing to have recalled twenty years from now. Similarly we know that it's not impossible for someone else to read our mail, so if we want to send a private communication we write a document, encrypt it with an appropriate tool, and then transmit the encrypted version.

So, Bruce, as a journalist, you're going to have to find a different drum to beat on.

The people who haven't absorbed the message so far? Tough. They'll either learn, or fall behind economically (or politically, or culturally ; all in some fairly vague sense). At which point, they (and their descendants) might as well be dead. Tough.

What are you going to do if you "brandish" it and they call your bluff and still refuse to leave? Worse yet, what are you going to do if they make a grab for it? Shoot them? Have fun explaining to the jury why you escalated the situation to one of life and death when your life wasn't in danger to begin with.

My life was in danger when they attempted to grab it. If they manage to take it from me, there is little chance that they won't kill me or at least threaten to. Why else would they need my gun? If they don't have hostile intentions the most peaceful way for them to defuse the situation is to leave.
If I shoot to maim, it doesn't give them that chance.

I'm as pro-gun as they come but if I was on your jury I'd convict your ass in a heartbeat if that was the way it went down.

Legal ramifications are not going to be a high priority at the time. Convict if you must, it's better than the alternative for me.

Its the race card. Taking offense is a given. People took offense when Bush was characterized in less colorful means but the difference here is purely race. Mostly its the fear of being portrayed as racist and that is a valid fear where there is no shortage of people looking for offense or those whose life is perpetuated by finding racial overtones in any action.

Any disagreement eventually gets twisted into race. Obama uses that to his advantage as do his handlers. There have been stories on major cable news about how this is all about race; health care.

It is a new cop out that was called early in the election cycle. Basically the card would be used to redirect any discussion he was on the losing side of. One thing people cannot handle, this is especially true of politicians, is that people don't like them or their ideas. Hence they look for a reason so they can portray those who criticize in the least favorable light.

I'm curious how they're going to go about this. For the most part people who play EVE don't do much FPS, and vice versa. Without an overlap in the player base, they'll be essentially making a completely different game for a different demographic. So what's the point of trying to tie the two together?

But seriously, I can't imagine that they would spend billions on this airplane, with all its missile countermeasures and million-dollar tables and all that, and not include a weapons cache "just in case". Considering the military bent of our government, it would seem counter to its nature.